Russia, China veto UN resolution on Syria sanctionsMiddle East EyeRussian President Vladimir Putin had earlier said that Moscow opposed any new sanctions against Syria as they would undermine peace efforts to end the country's protracted war. "In terms of sanctions against the Syrian leadership, I think that now they ...and more »

When U.S. President Donald Trump named a new national security adviser just over a week ago, current and former national security officials did more than just breathe a sigh of relief. Many expressed cautious optimism. Those who knew or had worked previously with Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster saw his selection as a sign the barely month-old Trump administration was starting to get its footing. McMaster came in with a reputation for being able to quickly command respect, take a room full of divergent opinions and then forge them into solid policy recommendations, all the while not being afraid to stand up to his superiors. “He is a convincing, well-thought out strategic thinker who’s able to persuade decision makers on how to do things the right way,” said Michael Pregent, a former intelligence officer who worked with McMaster in Iraq. Now though, just over a week into the job, McMaster’s skills, and his ability to hold the president’s ear, will likely be put to the test as the White House begins to discuss the Pentagon’s long-awaited plan to destroy the Islamic State terror group. Counter-Islamic State plan Defense officials have described the plan, delivered to the White House Monday and later presented to key staffers by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, as merely a preliminary document. “This is really the framework for a broader discussion,” Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters Monday. “There are a number of details that will need to be filled in as this plan moves forward.” Pentagon officials also emphasized that the plan, even is these early stages, draws upon more than just military force. “It is a plan to defeat IS rapidly … to do it on a global level with all instruments of national power in a synchronized way,” Davis said. “Diplomacy is a key part of the plan.” How such a plan will fare with Trump, who has said he wants to “totally obliterate” IS, remains to be seen. And the plan’s reliance on diplomacy in addition to military might could signal a potential flashpoint, especially after the administration announced its intent to cut the State Department and foreign assistance budgets by at least 30 percent. It might seem like a daunting task even for a national security adviser as widely respected as Lt. Gen. McMaster; but, those who know McMaster believe if anyone is able to navigate the internal political schisms, it’s the general. “He’s the kind of guy who will sit there and listen to opposing points of view, get the best arguments from both sides and be able to collate, put it together and present it to the president,” Pregent said. "He won’t just let them sit at the table and say how much things aren’t working." Pregent recounted one meeting in Iraq during which McMaster, then a colonel, was unrelenting in arguing a point with Gen. David Petraeus, who served as commander of multinational forces in Iraq. “Gen. Petraeus said, ‘Alright. I got it. Enough,'” Pregent said. “But because of his adamant stance on a position, policies were changed.” NSC power struggle? Still, a number of former national security officials question whether McMaster will be able to find a way to make sure that in the end, the president listens to him instead of other advisers like White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, who have little formal foreign and national security policy experience. “Domestic politics is always wrapped up in American foreign policy so I’d think it would be naive to think that you could exclude them entirely,” former NSC staffer Kenneth Pollack told VOA’s Press Conference USA. “But we just don’t know what role Steve Bannon will have.” Pollack, who has known McMaster for decades, said his hope is that McMaster will find a way “to grab control over the National Security Council and the wider American national security process.” “He’s obviously a tremendous battlefield commander,” Pollack added. “But he’s also demonstrated a real understanding that military force can only be part of a wider foreign panoply.” Still, Bannon and Miller are not the only voices with which McMaster will have to compete. There’s also Sebastian Gorka, the deputy assistant to the president who sits on the White House’s Strategic Initiatives Group, a body described by some as a parallel NSC. “The definition of victory for us is a very simple one,” Gorka said last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, outside Washington. “We are going to make the black flag of jihad as repugnant around the world, not just here but around the world, as repugnant as the black, white and red swastika flag of the Third Reich.” “The brand of jihad has to be destroyed,” he said. Gorka, who did not reply to several email requests for comment, has come under sustained criticism in recent weeks from some within the academic and national security communities who question his approach. Critics like Michael S. Smith, II, a terrorism analyst who has consulted in the past with both the White House and members of Congress, say Gorka’s penchant for rejecting nuance in favor of more sweeping sentiment, while catchy, is potentially dangerous. “Americans should pray Gen. McMaster can pull the wool from over President Trump's eyes, and help him realize Bannon and Gorka are not qualified to work on national security policy in the White House,” Smith said. “But when it comes to the question of whether he can, I'm not holding my breath.” A general's perspective There is no shortage of former officials who see reason to worry, pointing to both the lack of international experience and the rhetoric coming from White House officials like Bannon and Gorka, and from even Trump himself. “There is this sincere and present danger of thinking that there’s a military solution to almost any problem,” cautioned retired Air Force Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who emphasized he was speaking on his own behalf. Bidlack, who served on the National Security Council in the late 1990s, characterized some of the talk coming from White House officials as naïve. Bidlack said that is where military veterans, like McMaster and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general who led both NATO and U.S. Central Command, can play a vital role. “Given the people whispering in the president’s ear, perhaps it’s good to have someone who’s seen the battlefield, who can whisper, ‘Not so fast, sir,’” Bidlack said. Michael Pregent, who worked with McMaster in Iraq, is likewise optimistic the new national security adviser will be able to use his experience and credibility to help change the administration’s tone. “What he understands is how U.S. military power, U.S. military actions affect the population - the second and third order effects, the long-lasting ramifications of aggressive military action on a community,” he said. Pregent added McMaster is also unlikely to back down to anyone at the White House on Islamic State, Russia or anything else. “I believe he will tell the president that Russia is not an ally in the war against IS in Syria because they will indiscriminately target a Sunni population and that Iranian militias in Iraq are not an ally in the fight against IS.”

Palpable anticipation and suspense prevailed Tuesday on Capitol Hill as President Donald Trump prepared to deliver his first speech to Congress, a body steeped in history and ritualized formality. "We are all looking forward to what the president has to say tonight," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. "It's a big moment for him. More importantly, it's a big moment for our country. Americans are ready to move forward." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer struck a far less optimistic tone. "If past is prologue, the president will use populist rhetoric in his speech to hide what he is actually doing, which is helping the special interests and making it harder to stay in the middle class," the New York Democrat said. Eager for details Lawmakers of both parties told VOA they wanted details about Trump's economic agenda, from spending priorities to tax reform to health care. "Most important, getting people back to work," said Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican. "I hope that will be a principal theme." "Really, what the country needs is to put people to work in good-paying jobs and create the infrastructure we need to compete," said Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Many Democrats, like Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, also want the president to discuss his immigration policies. "One of his executive orders expands the definition of crimes that would be the basis for deporting those who are undocumented to include traffic offenses and misdemeanors," Durbin said. "This isn't about taking dangerous people off the streets of America. It's breaking up families." Foreign challenges While much of the president's speech will focus on domestic matters, Senator Cory Gardner noted that foreign challenges abound. "I think we need a clear understanding of what exactly we're going to do on North Korea and how we are going to counteract Kim Jong Un, the forgotten maniac," the Colorado Republican said. Some Democrats attending the president's first speech to Congress skipped his inauguration January 20. As is tradition, lawmakers of both parties are expected to give Trump a loud ovation when he enters the House chamber. Many Democrats said they would applaud less for the man than for the office he holds. "I disagree, clearly, with many of his policies," Durbin said. "But I will be respectful of the office of the presidency." A speech to Congress is no magic bullet for getting a president's agenda enacted. But the address can have a political impact. As one Republican lawmaker told VOA, a successful Trump speech will rally and unite Republicans while providing an on-ramp for Democrats to engage constructively in at least some of the legislation Congress takes up in the months ahead.

President Donald Trump's nominee to be the director of national intelligence on Tuesday pledged to back thorough investigation of any Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, seeking to reassure lawmakers worried that partisan politics might interfere with a probe. "I think this is something that needs to be investigated and addressed," former Republican Senator Dan Coats said during his confirmation hearing to be the top U.S. intelligence official. Coats, 73, who was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also promised that the panel would have full access to all of the documents and other materials needed for an investigation. "I have no intention of holding anything back from this committee," Coats said. Trump denounced intelligence agencies for their assessment that Russia sought to influence the election on his behalf. Trump has also repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, prompting concerns that he might not take a hard enough line in dealings with Moscow. Coats addressed that concern by listing activity by Russia, along with that of China and North Korea, as among the main challenges faced by the country. "Russia's assertiveness in global affairs is something I look upon with great concern, which we need to address with eyes wide open and a healthy degree of skepticism," Coats said. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to oversee all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and improve communications among them. One concern about Coats was his record on the U.S. use after the 2001 attacks of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, which are widely seen as torture. In 2015, he was one of the few lawmakers who opposed legislation sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain that made the use of such techniques illegal. Coats promised that he would follow the law, saying he voted against it because he wanted "to at least have a discussion" about the best way to proceed if the intelligence community wanted to obtain crucial information quickly. Coats also strongly defended U.S. government surveillance programs, such as the gathering of millions of telephone metadata records. Although he was ambassador to Germany under President George W. Bush, Coats would be the first director of national intelligence who has not spent most of his career in the military, in the intelligence community or as a diplomat. Coats, who is popular with Democrats and his fellow Republicans, is expected to be easily confirmed.

President Trump continues his war on the mediaBrock PressPresident Trump continues his war on the media. February 28, 2017 Luiz Brasil External News, ... During the ad, a number of contradictory statements about “the truth” flashed by the screen, some of which referenced Trump and his recent attacks on the ...and more »

The Four Stories You Can Write About TrumpHuffington PostTrump has small hands, a joke about Cheeto Jesus, homophobic jokes about Putin and bromance, that sort of thing. They'll go as far as comedians calling Melania a prostitute and the Trump kid names, followed by an apology if the Internet blows up.

Meet 'the brutes': Trump brothers to visit VancouverCBC.caHeirs to the family business, staunch defenders of their presidential father, avid big game hunters, self-described "brutes" — these are the labels commonly used to describe the eldest sons of U.S. President Donald Trump, Eric and Donald Jr., who on ...and more »

School news: Des MoinesDesMoinesRegister.comActivities include a fishing trip, learning how to play chess, meeting police officers and business leaders, learning how to tie a tie, participating in games of skill and memorizing the Boys2Men leadership alphabet. They boys have also received ...